On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:44:15AM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Paul W. Frields <stickster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > uniq-ing the IP addresses doing the downloading. That method has the > > potential to cut out legitimate, repetitive downloads from inside a > > firewall. I'd feel better cutting those ticks out if they were > > I'm not sure if you can see this in our logs or not (you might have to > have the individual mirrors logs :( ), but if the response code is a > 206, that means it was a RANGE request - to download part of a file. > It's not at all uncommon for a download manager to open 20-30 > connections to download the same file for the same user., > > So I'd opt for the conservative approach of uniques as well. To clarify, I'm already filtering these out on a 302 code. How would that change your opinion, if at all? -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
Attachment:
pgpfczrggiAmj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
